Contents

Unless someone can fix this, I will continue to vote for having VFS's until it is fixed and rant monthly on how we do not have enough sysops

It is blindingly obvious we do not have enough sysops or vandal spree like this would not be happening. I invite every user who voted against to explain how this is not screaming "WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH SYSOPS BECAUSE SHIT LIKE THIS SHOULDN'T HAPPEN IF WE DID" ~SirFrosty(Talk to me!) 06:37, March 24, 2012 (UTC)

Per Frosty. I came on here to write and had to start cleaning up vandalism. I don't like having to do that when it would be easier to simply block and then clean, or alternatively somebody else does the blocking. 30 minutes of chasing around what an admin could do in 5 - if there were admins around to do it. Ignoring Shabby's anti-admin rant, having minimal admins and deliberately keeping it at minimal means that most regular users and admins alike don't get the chance to actually write new content. • Puppy's talk page • 06:59 24 Mar

Frosty ... you could list a chain of 100 good reasons to have a new admin ... and it won't change anything. The admins are convinced there are too many admins, even though the vandalism sprees are wild and the feature cue is not cued and so many admins take off for exageratedly long breaks that Mimo seems like a regular contributor, but still ... they won't share their buttons and tools. A lot of the user base also seem to feel that way, some how, there are simply too many admins not doing everything that needs to be done, so, why, I guess according to their logic, should we get yet another admin, who wont do all of the stuff that needs to be done. It is a beautiful and elegant explanation of the most infaliable logic ever concieved on the internet. Good luck trying to compete with that my dear Frosty, maybe you are intelegent and clever enough to supercede the communities airtight confidence in the non need for needed admins and the non usefulness of having a useful admin who will do admin tasks that admins aren't tasking. :) --ShabiDOO 07:49, March 24, 2012 (UTC)

Considerng this is a nightly occurrence for me and Pup something has to give. But I think of it like this: An admin wonders into a vandal shitstorm and they just ban thm, they don't see a new for new sysops so they blindly vote aganst a vfs not knowing what happens while they sleep. I and Pup on the other hand, have to revert and wait for hours and hours for a sysop to show because there are none active when we are, and surprise surprise we still have vandals and we see the need for the VFS because there are no sysops when we are active. To be honest, there are no admins in our timezone and this needs to change, be it opping me, Pup, both or someone entirely different, I DON'T CARE just as long as I don't have to keep dealing with vandals and other users keep going on about how we have plenty of sysops. Yes in the American and European suited timezones we have plenty, but in the Australian, NZ, and East Asian we have fuck all and that seriously needs to change starting April, or well I for one will simply ignore it and write instead, I am not payed to deal with this crap so I will strike until it is fixed and I strongly advise users who feel the same way to do the same. Viva la revolution! ~SirFrosty(Talk to me!) 08:23, March 24, 2012 (UTC)

I agree that we need sysops in the Australian/NZ/East Asian time zone. Evidently we're not incredibly popular there and there are only so many people, but we should work on something to that end. The notion though that vandal sprees wouldn't be happening with more sysops though is just ridiculous. Using the logic that so many do in comparing Uncyclopedia to a functioning real world government (which it is not), that's like saying if we had ten times more police officers, nobody would ever commit a crime. Things are going to happen. Things that are not irreparable and not eternally damning on the state of the wiki. For admins in whatever time zone(s) are deficient in them, but stock-piling admins is not justifiable by saying "bad stuff happened, we must not have enough enforcement." You could have ten admins for every regular user and shit would still happen. You'd have to entirely block IP edits and ban everybody who ever made the slightest unconventional or suspicious statement to accomplish what you're alluding to, and even then something would slip through the cracks. Vandalism will continue to happen, it will continue to be reverted, people will continue to ban the vandals, whether after their first edit or after a half an hour. As you say, you're not paid to revert them, and nobody's forcing you too. If you deem it unnecessary to spend your time cleaning up after vandals, then you simply don't have to do it. Somebody else will. Whether a regular user or an admin. In good or bad time. The result will be the same. This is not a call to arm against the "revolution", nor a definitive anti-new-admins statement, merely a counter to what I perceive to be poor logic in justifying new ones. -RAHB 08:58, March 24, 2012 (UTC)

Yes vandal sprees wouldn't stop with more sysops, however less rollbacker time would be wasted and more articles would get written. Because time reverting vandals could be replaced with time doing reviews, writing and actually enjoying the site. Isn't there something in that? Isn't there something in the idea of more sysops = less time wasted because vandals are banned before they can do any amount of damage = Happier users? ~SirFrosty(Talk to me!) 09:05, March 24, 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's a much more valid argument. Of course, any users made sysop would be devoting more of their own writing time to maintenance in being a sysop. If we were to, for example, op you and Puppy, which I think is a fine idea and would go far in fixing the issue of the gaps in the time zones, the two of you would be doing the maintenance you'd normally be doing, and be expected to, as well as having to deal with (for lack of a better example) things like what we're discussing now, spending your time explaining one thing or another to everyone else who seeks your opinion (or seeks to belittle it). Which is perfectly normal and is a part of the administration of anything, it's not to say that it's an annoyance. But being an admin takes time away from writing, reviews, etc. as well. And most of the users who I'd think of opping at the moment are at the least decent and at the most prolific and very good writers. -RAHB 09:12, March 24, 2012 (UTC)

Yes but with vandals instead of reverting everything they do in the time frame between sign up and when somebody else shows up (which can take several hours) it can be over in as little as 5 minutes with a simple "oh look a vandal, bans". And this is the point a think most of the users that vote against don't get, one doesn't have to focus their efforts on one user who is causing problems, but can stamp them out in one quick action and move on to deal with other things and truth be told, the time saved from these blatant vandals greatly outweighs the time wasted on other administrative stuff. Well, thats enough from me, if it can't sway users next month then so be it, but hopefully it will. ~SirFrosty(Talk to me!) 09:31, March 24, 2012 (UTC)

The vandal trail and the lack of keeping up the feature que shows that admins don't stay real active at specific times and/or seasons. Frosty and others should have a banning stick for sure, even if you don't want to call them admins or syops or whatever - the power is in the button not the title! It's wonderful that he and Puppy and Tasmania and others are doing admin work, and if they can't be given a simple button (if they abuse it, take it away) then my name isn't Aleister (it isn't). Aleister 9:40 24-3

I’m not aware of the wiki logistics of implementing this but is it possible to give a user a 24 hour banhammer of doom? For example, Frosty checks the recent changes and notices User:NiggafuckergangstertrollerniggerintheDaClub437McNiggernigger wrecking the joint, bans him/her for 24 hours to get rid of him/her and then an Admin, when He/She/It wakes up from their slumber can check to see if the ban was justified or not. This way, the Admins can keep their elite status while giving trusted users the necessary weapons needed to battle the barrage of arseholes with nothing better to do than destroy a wiki destined for the big VFD in the sky. I understand and I wish to continue.. 10:49, March 24, 2012 (UTC)

Not really. Theoretically it's possible, but it would mean creating a new user type and that would involve a truckload of work. So it simple isn't feasible. • Puppy's talk page • 10:56 24 Mar

Like RAHB says, more admins does not equal less vandals. If you don't wanna spend your precious time cleaning up after a vandal then just don't do it. -- BrigadierGeneralSirZombiebaron 11:15, March 24, 2012 (UTC)

@RAHB. Being an admin isn't a job, but it does have it's demands. Being a user is also not a job, but has similar demands. People come to me for suggestions, advice, or to belittle my advice. I spot vandalism now and I do what I can to fight it. I end up spending more time on things like this then actually writing. The difference being that if I spot something in a protected page that needs altering, want to huff or unhuff an article, or ban a pesky vandal, I have to be one of the many annoyances on a current admins time. And the horrible fact there is that I waste my time, and yours, over what may end up being a triviality, but it's time wasted. I'm damned good at working around restrictions like this, but it's still a pest. The only argument against more admins is "we have enough." That doesn't mean that more would not be beneficial. Taking your police analogy before - police stop crime in two ways, by stopping the perpetrators, and by being a visual deterrent to potential perpetrators. Take Willy on Wheels as an example. He started going through Wikipedia and working out what the strengths and weaknesses were. His mission, as it were, was to try and see how many edits he could make before he was stopped. It took a creation of a new user type (rollback) to eventually encourage him to stop. We are facing a similar issue with this current pest. He knows what the strengths and weaknesses of our anti-vandal measures are, and he preys on them. Having more anti-vandal measures will mean he will need to adjust or, hopefully, just quit. Long texty block but in a nutshell - Pro column suggests that having more admins means admin tasks are spread more thinly and admins can get back to editing more. Con column has this lonely "we already have enough" which makes very little sense. By all means I wouldn't suggest giving admin rights to all and sundry, but at the same time not giving them to users who have already shown that they are active, significant members who work tirelessly for the good of the overall community to share the burden of being an admin would be a bad idea because... I have trouble ending that thought. • Puppy's talk page • 11:20 24 Mar

Zombie...you are 100% correct. More admins doesn't = less vandals. More users dedicated to reverting vandals (and the ability to do it), means vandalism is diverted more quickly. It's totally unconstructive to tell a user who wants to help fight vandalism...to not even bother if he feels like it's a waste of his time. He's saying it would be far less of a waste of time if he had that bloody button. That button that the admins seem terrified to share. --ShabiDOO 17:20, March 24, 2012 (UTC)

I'd be a lot more inclined to give your comments consideration, Shabidoo, if you weren't such a tremendous asshole. Now switching over to someone (Puppy) who took the time to actually articulate his thoughts in a calm and diplomatic manner, and didn't just continue on with a torrent of over-the-top sarcasm, I do see your point, Puppy. Feasibly there's no argument I can think of to deny that thought so I'll go along with this and see how it goes. Touching on Lyrithya's much earlier point, I guess the block against opping new people is sometimes related to the odious idea that somehow when people are opped they're married to adminship and allowed to behave like they have tenure or something. I'm prepared to vote in favor of new admins, although I'd hope that some of the other ops (particularly the crats) could become convinced that taking another look at the de-opping policy would be a good idea. While good administrators can come out of frequent VFS, I do foresee the distinct possibility that there'll be more frequent occasions of ops who just aren't handling it properly (Not that there aren't a few now). So yes, no thanks to Shabidoo's utter disregard for preserving the image of this side of the discussion, I'll go along with this. -RAHB 19:27, March 24, 2012 (UTC)

Our current deopping process seems to work fine: if a majority of the community (with more weight put on the opinions of admins) agrees that somebody should be deopped, they get deopped. The fact that nobody has ever been deopped (permanently) just proves how cool and sexy all of our admins are. -- BrigadierGeneralSirZombiebaron 22:17, March 24, 2012 (UTC)

The biggest promotion of vandalism is arguing pointlessly about vandals. The biggest detraction from writing is arguing pointlessly with each other. There is a ton of both of that going on at this page, and still less than 10 articles completed for Conservation Week. This wiki is a sad mess. --112.187.239.21 20:01, March 24, 2012 (UTC)

HAHA

I do believe it has been April 1st for the last 9 hours. <3 Australian Eastern Standard time :D ~SirFrosty(Talk to me!) 22:51, March 31, 2012 (UTC)

"All dates and times are calculated in UTC". But as it is nearly 11pm March 31st UTC you can probably go ahead and reopen the vote now. -- BrigadierGeneralSirZombiebaron 22:57, March 31, 2012 (UTC)

Excellent, that extra hour shall make all the difference :D ~SirFrosty(Talk to me!) 22:58, March 31, 2012 (UTC)

Since the focus is here at the moment..

Unban me from #uncyclopedia on the IRC FFS. 03:14, April 13, 2012 (UTC)

Voting clarity

It seems funny, but Lyrithya stated in her edit comments that her Oppose/Support/Neutral were not votes, (or !votes for the code inclined). They've been taken as votes, and then struck from the record because she had "voted" too many times. Romartus has decided to vote with an Oppose instead of an Against and now TKF has decided to do the same as his previous vote didn't count because he didn't say Oppose or Against or anything of the sort. Just for a little bit of clarity - and I know I'm asking a lot here - could people voting mark their votes with a clear For/Against or use {{For}}/{{Against}}. Or if commenting, actually say Comment or something. I know that the idea of having a structured approach may be a little silly, but it often helps. • Puppy's talk page • 12:52 25 Apr

Puppy, just take the hint. Run away through the hole in the fence. Chase the ball into the street. Tie your tail to a bowling ball and roll a strike (huh?). Choke on a stick. Go hump some legs. If you think that a "not vote" means "not vote" when it's clearly somehow a vote, you need more treats and your tummy rubbed. Aleister (I still don't know why all three can't just be opped. Stupid rules) 13:13 25-4-maybe '12, maybe '13

Oh look who wanders past... "Aleister". The trouble maker. This guy. "Aleister" declined his nomination for VFS and therefore generated all subsequent related issues and problems. I say we just force this "Aleister" to accept sysop regardless of if he wants it or not. The temptation to use the sysop tool will be unbearable, and we can then break his soul. MrNFork you!13:34, Apr 25

Seconded. I despise the unwanted British Irish children of Australia.--Sycamore(Talk) 13:36, April 25, 2012 (UTC)

I feel special

I like how the admins are voting aginst people to spite those that voted against their favourites, makes me feel special. But seriously, lol at the fact this is not going to ever going to get an un-bias, drama free result. ~SirFrosty(Talk to me!) 09:07, April 26, 2012 (UTC)

yeahhhh...what else is new. I'm going to leave my hat in the ring next time, just so I can see how hard Lyrithya will oppose me. Gonna be a blast. XD ~ BB ~ (T) ~ Thu, Apr 26 '12 9:16 (UTC)

Perhaps the VFS contention has been the irritating amounts of democracy added to the system and also the ambivalence towards the candidates. I'm voting for Kang.--Sycamore(Talk) 09:53, April 26, 2012 (UTC)

I think the mere notion of voting against people should be abolished. Why not uplift another person rather than bring one down? And to avoid drama, why not limit the voters to write for, without a TL;DR reason why they did? Mattsnow 10:33, April 26, 2012 (UTC)

I disagree, you're essentially choosing who gets to run the site here and if you lack confidence in someone its better to voice that opinion that to keep it to yourself and hope it all works out. And speeches make them seem important :D ~SirFrosty(Talk to me!) 10:42, April 26, 2012 (UTC)

The tl;drs are some of the funniest contributions that some editors make. • Puppy's talk page • 10:45 26 Apr

Skullthumper and the Frog sure could write some long-winded shit. Too bad they doused themselves in napalm jelly, lit themselves on fire, and jumped from top floor of the Sears Tower. They will be missed. ~ BB ~ (T) ~ Thu, Apr 26 '12 10:50 (UTC)

Good idea, but...

... there was a vote in the first round of VFS. The overwhelming majority supported new admins, with one or two exceptions. There was then a vote on the number of admins. Ignoring the few joke votes for 1 admin, the votes fell heavily on the side of two new admins. Two of the admins complaining now didn't bother to vote in the first round - although one did comment - and didn't bother to nominate in the second. One of those admins is one who "left" and brought the need to a head, and now has come back to "not vote".

Turning around and saying "There are a few complaints, so ignore the original vote" goes somewhat against the purpose of the original vote. While I have no issue with the idea on it's own merit, it's probably way past the time for these complaints to have been voiced about the nominees (as these could have been raised in the second round of voting) and now a number of votes needs to be tallied and not much else. • Puppy's talk page • 02:11 27 Apr

But then there's this (NB: The ops can change these rules at any time for any reason to help the fight against wiki-terrorism) in the rules/process section. So I call Kings-X on your note. Ha! Cleanup in aisle 5. Aleister 14:18 27-4-'12

Given it's only ops voting in this round, that would suggest it's the ops who are the ones doing the wiki-terrorism. So the ones who are causing the drama get to choose how best to handle it? That's like using opping only the people appearing on UN:BP. And you're in check. • Puppy's talk page • 02:23 27 Apr

I think the optimum words in the rules are "for any reason" (wiki terrorism is a given in the present situation, so they have to play the lay of the land). You forgot to take into account that all chessboards have trap doors in selected squares from which things in check can escape and pop up behind the opposite-colored pieces and silently tip-toe off. Aleister 14:28 27-4-'12

I'm trying to get a situation where none of the current sysops oppose what we end up doing. Currently that might happen. MrNFork you!14:36, Apr 27

So the opposition of the few is more important than the will of the many? • Puppy's talk page • 02:55 27 Apr

In my opinion harmony amongst the sysops is more important than worrying about procedure. It's only a suggestion. MrNFork you!15:15, Apr 27

I know it's probably not something altogether popular at this very moment but maybe we could leave the idea of new ops for now - The arguments for new sysops this month were pretty weak at best. We could leave this for a couple of months and have a new round of nominations when there's clear consensus?--Sycamore(Talk) 15:30, April 27, 2012 (UTC)

There was clear consensus on the need for sysops. So I'm now definitely pulling out of the contention. That leaves only the four candidates, and whichever current admins have voted for (or against) me have the option of changing their vote. Because at the present stage I'm actually happier to have this drama over with and have the candidates that I feel would make good admins (ie - any two of the four) to be opped. That, and I'd like to be an admin at ED at some stage, and they may not allow me to have both roles. • Puppy's talk page • 03:56 27 Apr

Nothing has even changed. I just made a suggestion on the VFS page. Drama? I don't understand what you are talking about. Sorry. MrNFork you!16:00, Apr 27

Well, anyway you sound pretty sure that you want to withdraw from this months VFS, and I have to say that I'm sorry to hear that. I will remove you now. MrNFork you!16:57, Apr 27

Maybe I'm wrong, but I think that in the second round you can't just remove your name, can you? Puppy would still be voted on on his merits. The man is a coding genius, why withhold some of the best coding from him? I think MrN was just coming up with a way to give all three of them the codes, which is really cool. Aleister 23:17 27-4-'12

I'm out

This is hardly ground-breaking news, but I just want to make sure that whoever is in charge knows of this so then can cross my name out. My original plan was to get as many votes and on the last day, drop out and tell my constituents to vote for the next best person. Seeing as how that didn't happen, I'm just going to go ahead and drop. Frankly, I never would have accepted the admin position; I don't know enough, don't have enough experience, and kind of hate this place. As thus, I'm going to take a few weeks or months or whatever time off from this hellish place. Signing out --OliOmniOmbudsman 17:01, April 28, 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to group politics Oliphaunte. Ive lived and worked in a lot of "democratic" group settings, and, based on my experience, uncyclopedia is a very strong decision based on consensus oriented group. There are a few nasty people, a few dictator like characters and some occasional blown out drama, but, again, in my experience, that kind of thing can happen on a daily basis in social structures similar to this one. Compared to a real life news organization, office or social club, uncyclopedia is cloud number nine. The ratio of stupid dicks compared to decent people is very low, and the amount of authority complexes and unilateral decisionmaking is pretty small compared to how many things flow smoothely without even a hitch. And compared to how outright hostile this place could be a couple years ago, there is, if anything, an open and welcoming atmosphere and lots of people trying to improve it every day.

Sorry you hate this place. Good luck with whatever you do, and make sure you keep your grandmother away from me. No means no Oliphaunte, seriously, no never means yes with me. --ShabiDOO 21:41, April 28, 2012 (UTC)

You've raised a good point. I'll have to sleep on it before I make any further decisions regarding my own personal drama with this place. I'm not trying to start an argument or anything, I tend to sometimes be dramatic, which I hate but still let happen sometimes, such as in this case. For now, I merely wanted whoever was in charge of VFS to cross my name out so the other three contestants have a tighter competition (Xam didn't have any votes and now he has three after Pup dropped out, for example). In the meantime, I'll be doing things under the radar, like I always have, but to a lesser extent.

Catch you around IRC Shab. Also, she says she'll be in your bedroom tonight. I'd lock the doors if I were you. --OliOmniOmbudsman 22:26, April 28, 2012 (UTC)

You know what, I've just realized I'm being overly dramatic. I think the stress of this week finally got to me. Dis-regard all of my past statements for this week. --OliOmniOmbudsman 22:33, April 28, 2012 (UTC)

Comments disregarded. Also, Oli, remember that once you're in Uncyclopedia, you're in for life. Like the Mafia. Or the Crips and Bloods. ~ BB ~ (T) ~ Sat, Apr 28 '12 22:49 (UTC)

Don't you start too. Jk. It's been a rough week and I let my nerves get to me by channeling my frustration out on the site. --OliOmniOmbudsman 23:10, April 28, 2012 (UTC)

I figured that the best way to circumvent all the stupid that was happening around this was to quit out of VFS. Given that being an admin - in my mind - is actually a chore rather than a reward, it made sense to just avoid it. As it is, I've now been told that me trying to avoid the dramathon that this turned into was "childish", which really stings. The major stupid behind all of this - that I can count, and I could have just as easily waited a few days and most likely I would have been opped. As far as I'm concerned, the community supported the candidates they felt were the ones who would represent them, but the actions of a few who consider being an admin a role of power that they don't want to share with someone who will openly disagree with them, which is where all this starte in the first place. So e|m|c is being opped simply for not having shaken the boat for a while, and Xamralco is being opped because he is unlikely to disagree with the current admins. Or in short, the people who are least likely to make decisions are the ones that are most likely to become admins, and the site will remain stagnant. So as far as I am concerned, there's no point in me trying to make this place any better, which means there's no point in me bothering to stay. There is also no point in me trying to avoid drama here any more, so I feel very free to say the obvious - the current VFS structure has pushed this site to a point where the ones that make the crucial decisions are happy to let it slide further into obscurity, and any movement that would pull away from that is considered to be dangerous and therefore is stamped upon in order to keep the status quo. And keeping the status quo in a moving landscape means dying. Otherwise we would accept the reality that we are a multimedia site and encourage the inclusion of video and audio, instead of deleting it and fighting against anything that encourages it's creation. We would actually work towards the ideas of social networking in an open way that increases our position in the blogger-sphere rather than restricting it to what amounts to little more than lip service and a way of preaching to the choir. We would attempt to grow our base of articles, and focus on the creation of things that would bring people to the site rather than putting more effort into deleting the things that are sub-par but with promise. And to be honest we would ignore the backwater that is IRC as a dying medium rather than making it a priority for deciding on who actually can make a decision.

Then again, I've only been here for a short time, written some okay articles, done a few reviews, and been a part of a few small projects. What would I know? I'm just a childish bully. • Puppy's talk page • 02:49 29 Apr

Ok, Dave Chapelle. Of course, if somebody calls you a childish bully, you could...also either get introspective, or just chose to ignore them, if you think they're wrong. That might be one course of action. At any rate, you could've waited until you were made an admin, and then made the same points. As for it being a chore, well, nobody ever accused Olipro of doing any work around here. Hope ya change your mind some day and come back. ~ BB ~ (T) ~ Sun, Apr 29 '12 3:40 (UTC)

I don't hope he changes his mind and comes back. -RAHB 07:41, April 29, 2012 (UTC)

Cold showers all round. Puppy, you are pulling a bit of a Multiliteralist move here, a great writer but an incorrigible 'flouncer'. I personally regret any contributor leaving this website as I think it offers a great platform for anyone who wants to work in a collaborative project. In my early days here I was harsh with some of my 'no votes' on a feature until others pointed this out to me. So I changed my approach. No doubt everyone has an opinion about what Uncyclopedia needs or doesn't but I trust we can keep our exchanges here and IRC civil, or at least, the faux-abuse level that others like to operate in but is clearly understood as such. --RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 08:24, April 29, 2012 (UTC)

Puppy, Oliphaunte, I am sorry to hear of any upset you've suffered. I know I'm not the only one who will miss you if you leave. Now let's all stop taking everything so seriously shall we? PENIS! Ah, that's better. --BlackFlamingo 12:56, April 29, 2012 (UTC)

It is kind of too bad that the people who take Uncyclopedia so seriously often take it too seriously. Spinning parakeet cunts lost in a rainbow hedge maze of pubic hair. --T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 02:32, May 1, 2012 (UTC)

Whaaaaa? "often take it too seriously", not a good idea and that attitude often gives other people a chance to enjoy the site too. As a wise old woman named Zana once darkly told me, those who throw no stones should live in glass houses and sometimes light the fireplace with gadgets. Aleister 3:20 May Day '12 (UTC)

My oh my...the (20)00s was a very strange decade indeed! Though he does have a point...the internet should be deleted. --ShabiDOO 23:02, May 2, 2012 (UTC)

How did Frosty...

... get opped without having a community vote? I thought the Admin only round was for "nominations". I read three nominations during that round. While I'd completely support Frosty becoming an admin, isn't there a process involved here that has been completely ignored? Given Zombiebaron's process gave a community vote, aren't we now supposed to have exactly that? • Puppy's talk page • 05:40 18 Sep

Yes, three users were nominated. However, one of those users got only one vote, and the other user is extremely inactive. Therefore, after round 1 there was only one candidate remaining, Frosty, and so he was opped. -- BrigadierGeneralSirZombiebaron 05:46, September 18, 2012 (UTC)

So we have a minimum of two votes - or a nomination and a second - before a candidate can be considered nominated? And excess of 30 edits in the past 30 days? (Again, Frosty is the clear choice, but if we're setting up a precedent where we're ruling people out prior to second round voting, I'd like it to become hard guideline rather than seeming to change on a whim. Especially as Frosty was voted fairly strongly against the last time we had a VFS run.) • Puppy's talk page • 05:52 18 Sep

There are no "guidelines". It's obvious to anybody with two eyes that Frosty was the only choice. No need for two more weeks of voting/drama. -- BrigadierGeneralSirZombiebaron 06:17, September 18, 2012 (UTC)

Okay. As long as we make it clear this was an arbitrary decision made by yourself rather than actually doing anything with community consensus. • Puppy's talk page • 06:50 18 Sep

Google defines arbitrary as "based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system," so I'm pretty sure whatever this decision was, it wasn't "arbitrary". We held a week long admin nomination/vote round and this was the result. -- BrigadierGeneralSirZombiebaron 06:53, September 18, 2012 (UTC)

There are no "guidelines" is the definition of an arbitrary ruling. As for nomination/vote round, there was a system put forward by yourself that included a week long nomination round, and from there it goes to a voting round. There was no voting round there beyond the nomination round, which means you've instituted a system that you've managed to go outside of the first time it has been put into practice. As I said. I fully support Frosty as an admin. But this system you've put in a place is a joke. Why not just change it to say "What I say goes" as that's what has happened in practice. • Puppy's talk page • 07:02 18 Sep

You keep talking, but you still haven't explained to me how we were supposed to have a two week voting period with only one nominee. -- BrigadierGeneralSirZombiebaron 07:05, September 18, 2012 (UTC)

Three nominees were added in there. While one is inactive (and shouldn't have been nominated) the other is an active member and was nominated. There is no guideline stopping either f these two being considered valid candidates. If you have a nomination round, and it comes out with three nominees, then there is a need for a voting round, by the nature of the system you put forward. • Puppy's talk page • 07:11 18 Sep

I am truly sorry that I forgot to add a clause that clearly stated "please use common sense" when I wrote my proposal, I thought it was redundant. -- BrigadierGeneralSirZombiebaron 07:17, September 18, 2012 (UTC)

So Mr-ex is not considered a real member of the community and therefore his nomination can be comfortably ignored? • Puppy's talk page • 07:30 18 Sep

There is a pretty big difference between the sockpuppet of an admin and Mr-ex777. I reread what you wrote above and I think you have misread my proposal: only the "top scoring" nominees progress to Round 2, so Mr-ex's nomination is irrelevant. -- BrigadierGeneralSirZombiebaron 08:21, September 18, 2012 (UTC)

Discussions from Jan 2013 voting...

Chief crat announcement

Can somebody please explain to me why Sannse changed ChiefjusticeDS's userrights? I have been sitting on IRC all night so clearly nobody made any effort to contact me. -- BrigadierGeneralSirZombiebaron 02:16, January 22, 2013 (UTC)

I don't know about the userrights, but Chief was the only candidate for crat, so has already won and was just waiting to be given the crown and scepter. Aleister 7:55 22-1-'13

What time was it changed? I only ask as I think it may have been changed while I was cleaning this page up and preparing it for the lightly roasted admins above, which cuts out the opportunity to ask. You can un-crat him and re-crat him though, if it makes you feel better. • Puppy's talk page • 09:59 22 Jan

Who are the current admins here? Can we vote to decommission any trouble makers?

Special:ListUsers/sysop. As to voting them out - VFS is voting for admins. We haven't had any admins voted out in the past that I'm aware of. Most admins who no longer have admin status have chosen to relinquish it, or just become inactive over a prolonged period. To vote out an admin - based upon our current site structure - would require a vote specifically to remove an admin. • Puppy's talk page • 02:13 22 Jan

Agreed: An important question but out of order on this page. I'm sure the Admins would appreciate having only one drama-fest at a time. Also: We should always choose the card game before the cards are dealt. SpıkeѦ15:09 22-Jan-13

Is any wanker going to be admin on both versions of Uncy? I am totally against that major conflict of interest. Any admin on free (worthless?) Uncy should not also be an admin here IMO.--Funnybony15:30, Jan 22

I plan to be an admin on both uncycs, but if anybody sees that as a problem I wouldn't object to my de-opping here, if there were some sort of consensus. -RAHB 00:39, January 23, 2013 (UTC)

Aye, please don't be so disparaging. We have worked hard to create this project and we have worked hard to try to move it, and some more than others. To call the entire thing worthless, while technically true given the nature of Uncyclopedia, is unfair to all who have donated their time and effort to what they thought was a worthy project. This applies in all cases, on both sides of this rather unfortunate fork. -— Lyrithya༆ 00:59, January 23, 2013 (UTC)

I remember only too well the VFS drama BEFORE the split, when Pup almost got adminship but declined it and Frosty got vetoed because he was at ED. And there was VFS drama before that, but I don't remember the details right now. No point in blaming the split. -- Simsilikesims(♀UN)Talk here. 07:03, January 23, 2013 (UTC)

Moreover, the split is not just something that happened to us, it was a finding of fundamental incompatibility with Wikia that some but not all of us made. This is an unavoidable source of ill will, but it should not be a source of drama on this page. We decided that we need more Admins. If we were to all move to the Fork, this would not be the case, but that option is not on the table; you don't decide between Obama and Romney by saying, "I want us to have a King instead." This vote is a question of who, not whether, nor what next. SpıkeѦ15:58 24-Jan-13

Clearly you do need more admins, but filling those gaps with infinite monkeys with sysop tools will only make things worse. So far there are a number of users who want it too muchMadclaw@talk 16:19, January 24, 2013 (UTC)

Voting irregularities

Romartus has locked down VFS in the midst of a revert war. Separately, I've noticed the following irregularities:

Various users (Froggy, Puppy, Aimsplode) have taken it upon themselves to adjust the vote count, police the two-vote maximum, and in some cases decide which vote will be the casualty of the two-vote maximum. I think that it should be up to the voter to police his votes, and up to the Chief to count them, which he ought to do frequently so as not to just announce a result at the end. Inflating vote counts to achieve a bandwagon effect is a well-known manipulative tactic.

The decision that a given user's votes don't count because of disciplinary action, especially disciplinary action on some other wiki, should likewise be left to Management.

The Chief struck Aimsplode's nomination, but various users have restored it to the page.

Supergeeky1 and Madclaw are advertising yet another wiki in their signatures. My understanding of Wikia's policy is that you are free to discuss anything on the Web; but absent such discussion, you should not use Wikia's resources to divert traffic away from Wikia.

PuppyOnTheRadio is marking a great many of his edits to VFS as "minor," meaning one might elect to view a change report that omits these edits. Reverting a non-minor edit of another user is never minor, and most substantive comments on VFS including adjustment of vote totals are not minor, they are supremely major. My last edit there was an example of a minor edit: Removing the second copy of a signature. SpıkeѦ15:37 24-Jan-13

THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU FIND A STRANGER IN THE ALPS! Clearly this page is in utter chaos, vote pages like these will always have a major outcome on any site, they should be properly monitored by administrators and not by the nominees, both puppy and aimsplode have showed that they are in fact not admin material IMO. Madclaw@talk 15:55, January 24, 2013 (UTC)

The reason for the link to my home wiki is that users here have a faster way of contacting me, before my home wiki became independant from wikia it linked to our original wikia site, just because I have a link in my signature does not mean I am in any way directing traffic away from wikia, There are probably a plethora of external links in articles that direct to sites not owned by wikia as well as interwiki links to foreign language Uncyclopedia's also not hosted by wikia, please explain the difference. Aditionally I see no policy here that prohibits me from having my signature the way it currently isMadclaw@talk 15:55, January 24, 2013 (UTC)

Sigs to a talk page on a different site AND back to the user page/talkpage are legal, as last I heard. The issue I had was with sigs that link exclusively to another website, specifically one that could confuse the reader. I assumed that SPIKE was talking about sigs that link exclusively to Free Uncyclopedia.

However, it appears that your sig is in fact coded wrong, as it transcludes code rather than a signature template. I don't know the right way to fix that at the moment, my sig uses a work around of a double template. By default, the sig vomits the contents of its target template, rather than transcluding the target template. So, even if you have a sig template, simply placing that as your sig in your preferences will still give you a code vomit.

My code is {{SUBST:User:Mnbvcxz/sig5a}}. The contents of User:Mnbvcxz/sig5a is {{User:Mnbvcxz/sig5}}. If I simply placed {{SUBST:User:Mnbvcxz/sig5}} (no "a"), my sig would "code vomit." There is another way around that issue, but I never used it. I believe it is a no-substitute command. --Mn-z 16:30, January 24, 2013 (UTC)

Removed the {{Subst:}} from my preferences, Most wiki's I edited prefered a {{Subst:}} on a custom signature. Madclaw@talk 16:41, January 24, 2013 (UTC)